Preview:

Headnote:

Kamp v. Dep't of Human Services, September Term, 2008, No. 81

FAMILY LAW: Where there is a belated request for DNA testing to challenge paternity, the success of which requires the rebuttal of the presumption of paternity, the court must consider the "best interests of the child" before ordering such testing.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 81 September Term, 2008

DARREN GERARD KAMP v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, GARRETT COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, BUREAU OF SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, EX REL VICKI JO DUCKWORTH

Bell, C.J. Harrell Battaglia Greene Murphy Rodowsky, Lawrence F. (Retired, specially assigned) Wilner, Alan M. (Retired, specially assigned), JJ.

Opinion by Bell, C.J. Harrell, Murphy, and Wilner, JJ., Concur.

Filed: September 21, 2009

At issue in the instant appeal is the propriety of two rulings made by the Circuit Court for Garret County, the result of which was the entry of judgment in favor of Darren Gerald Kamp, the petitioner, and against the Garrett County Department of Social Services, Bureau of Support Enforcement, the respondent, appearing ex rel. Vicki Jo Duckworth (Ms. Duckworth).1 The first ruling was the trial court's post divorce order that DNA paternity testing be conducted to determine whether the petitioner was the biological father of a child born during his marriage to Ms. Duckworth, his divorced spouse. The result of the DNA testing was the basis for the second challenged ruling, the trial court order that the

Although it arose in the context of an action to increase child support, the focus of this appeal is on the issue of paternity. More particularly, the question to be resolved is, when the child that is the subject of the inquiry is born during the marriage, but the issue of paternity was raised for the first time years after the parties divorced and at no time during the marriage or its immediate aftermath, under what circumstances is testing to determine paternity appropriate. The child's paternity necessarily was one of the issues the divorce court had to consider and it necessarily was also the subject of agreement between the petitioner and Ms. Duckworth during divorce and subsequent related proceedings. Nevertheless, it was the Bureau of Support Enforcement ("BOSE") that initiated the proceedings that resulted in the issue which prompted this appeal. The BOSE is a unit in the Department of Human Resources, Md. Code Ann., Human Serv.

Download Kamp v. Dept. of Human Resources.pdf

Maryland Law